Comments

The West has generally allowed freedom of religion but the ridiculousness of god bothering is now threatening to leave JS Mills' axiom in the dust.What we require is freedom FROM religion in the public space.If you suffer from sky fairy delusions, keep it private and seek treatment.Religious indoctrination of children is child abuse. Read more

This is a polarised, biased and contravertial article. For a start, the photograph accompanying this article is a full veil and not a beach wear that the Burquini is. Any argument that links a piece of garment to a specific religion, any religion is not only biased but self defeating and shows a total lack of intellect by the author. Enough has been said thus far on the Burquini issue, not only by the high judiciary of the land but also by many people on PS commenting on the same subject. Furthermore, one must show utter chock and surprise that none of the highly paid representatives of the so-called civil liberties organisations have expressed any opinion on this and many other much more important issues affecting the civil society at large. Read more

We should ban the kippa. It is the symbol of occupation, oppression, ethnic cleansing, and racism.If Muslims are flooding into Europe, it is because Israel and the US have destabilized the Middle East since the dispossession of Palestine. Read more

It is not surprising to see many public intellectuals (not targeting Singer here), in general men, cannot look this issue from the perspective of the subject, and her life chances. I'm not talking about affects etc. here, this is purely practical. An illuminating case can be found in near Turkish history, where headscarf was banned in universities to uphold secularism in public and many women were practically prevented from enrolling. What followed was not assimilation of those women into secular culture, rather it was lower employment of women in labor, confinement of women to private/domestic sphere and more radicalization. Main beneficiaries were those who -supposedly- indoctrinated those women, their parents and religious leaders, who capitalized on their suffering even though they never even openly supported women's education, and now that the ban is lifted, are trying their best to discourage women from enrolling. So by banning burkinis, you'll just serve puritan Muslims. I have a very simple rule on deaing with Muslims, ignore demands from Muslim men, support those of Muslim women, as the latter is likely to empower women and bring about a more tolerant, liberal version of Islam, while by doing the former you'll follow the path to Wahhabism. Read more

In a democratic society, the line should be drawn where the majority of people see fit. If the majority of people think women should cover their breasts in public, then so be it. If the majority of people don't think that, then women should be free to roam topless. Is that not how a democracy works? The question is, do the majority of people in France believe "that allowing burkinis to be worn on beaches tacitly endorses the repression of women?" Read more

No. This is not how a democratic society works. Liberal democracies recognize fundamental individual and minority rights. These rights are immune to the "tyranny of the majority." So it's not simply whatever the majority says goes. Read more

Under what conditions are the women themselves accepting this repressive ideology? If their family shuns them and they are ostracized from their community for not complying, can we really call this voluntary acceptance? Is it not obvious that the religion has coerced them into this kind of thinking? I'm not sure whats worse - that they have to dress this way (in extremely hot temperatures), or the fact that they have been brainwashed into thinking that they are exercising their own free will. Read more

Come on Mr. Lynch, you should be better than that. "Free will" or "voluntary acceptance" is not a valid basis for argument as I can similarly ask whether putting on make up is a voluntary choice of women, or is it a result of the patriarchal culture that indoctrinates women into being objects for sexual gratification. Or better, we can talk about high heels, which are, as many studies have shown, detrimental to women's (or anyone wearing) health, yet they can be openly advertised and remain popular. Needless to say I'm very much a hardline secularist, so cannot defend burqas etc. in good faith, yet your second argumentation is simply not valid. The first one, however, is sound, it is indeed about what the majority sees fit, yet embracing such a majoritarian view is likely to lead nasty places (eg: Erdoğanist Turkey). In the end, the question should be whether wearing burkinis open up public spaces to Muslim women, hence improve their chances for assimilation. Banning them might as well further confinement of Muslim women to domestic sphere, hence further radicalization and more repression. Read more

Simply put, the burkini ban is at odds with personal and religious freedoms that are a cornerstone contemporary western values, which we have no problem affirming when they are violated in less enlightened parts of the world.

There is admittedly some nuance to where one draws the line between secularism and xenophobia, but mandating a dress code in a way deliberately targeted at minority religions is pushing it very far.

What would you say if you went to a place that forbade people from wearing a shirt of another country's football team? Idiotic, of course. Hardly worth all this talk. There is more to it than just dress code.

A more potent line of thought that could maybe be a defense of the burkini ban is this: In order to assure individuals have some particular element of human rights or freedoms, it may well follow that the culture/community/nation must forbid the individuals from voluntarily relinquishing that right or freedom.

So it is illegal to sell oneself into slavery. No problem there. But should it be illegal to enter into a long term agreement to voluntarily restrict some lesser freedom?

What if I join a community of vegetarians, who would shame me and kick me out if I should ever eat meat? The state says in general people are free to eat meat, what then? What if I make a really serious binding agreement with God, the creator of the Universe, etc, to do never eat meat? What if I further agree to indoctrinate my kids to do the same?

The state obviously doesn't have the guts to take on *that* battle, knowing full well it would lose. So we get this silliness about dress code, as a kind of soft-power move to lessen the influence of religion in people's lives. That's what we're seeing. Read more

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.